Committee
Against Torture, General Comment 1, Communications concerning the return of
a person to a State where there may be grounds he would be subjected to torture
(article 3 in the context of article 22), U.N. Doc. A/53/44, annex IX at 52
(1998), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations
Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 279 (2003).

In view of the requirements of
article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that
the Committee against Torture "shall consider communications
received under article 22 in the light of all information made
available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the
State Party concerned",

In view of the need arising as a
consequence of the application of rule 111, paragraph 3, of the
rules of procedure of the Committee (CAT/C/3/Rev.2), and

In view of the need for
guidelines for the implementation of article 3 under the
procedure foreseen in article 22 of the Convention,

The Committee against Torture, at
its nineteenth session, 317th meeting held on 21 November 1997,
adopted the following General Comment for the guidance of States
parties and authors of communications:

1. Article 3 is confined in its
application to cases where there are substantial grounds for
believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected
to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention.

2. The Committee is of the view
that the phrase "another State" in article 3 refers to
the State to which the individual concerned is being expelled,
returned or extradited, as well as to any State to which the
author may subsequently be expelled, returned or extradited.

3. Pursuant to article 1, the
criterion, mentioned in article 3, paragraph 2, "a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human
rights" refers only to violations by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity.

Admissibility

4. The Committee is of the
opinion that it is the responsibility of the author to establish
a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his or her
communication under article 22 of the Convention by fulfilling
each of the requirements of rule 107 of the rules of procedure of
the Committee.

Merits

5. With respect to the
application of article 3 of the Convention to the merits of a
case, the burden is upon the author to present an arguable case.
This means that there must be a factual basis for the
authors position sufficient to require a response from the
State party.

6. Bearing in mind that the State
party and the Committee are obliged to assess whether there are
substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in
danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled,
returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on
grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the
risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.

7. The author must establish that
he/she would be in danger of being tortured and that the grounds
for so believing are substantial in the way described, and that
such danger is personal and present. All pertinent information
may be introduced by either party to bear on this matter.

8. The following information,
while not exhaustive, would be pertinent:

(a) Is the State concerned one in
which there is evidence of a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights (see article 3, pare.
2)?;

(b) Has the author been tortured
or maltreated by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity in the past? If so, was this the recent past?;

( c) Is there medical or other
independent evidence to support a claim by the author that he/she
has been tortured or maltreated in the past? Has the torture had
aftereffects?;

(d) Has the situation referred to
in (a) above changed? Has the internal situation in respect of
human rights altered?;

(e) Has the author engaged in
political or other activity within or outside the State concerned
which would appear to make him/her particularly vulnerable to the
risk of being placed in danger of torture were he/she to be
expelled, returned or extradited to the State in question?;

(f) Is there any evidence as to
the credibility of the author?;

(g) Are there factual
inconsistencies in the claim of the author? If so, are they
relevant?;

9. Bearing in mind that the
Committee against Torture is not an appellate, a quasi-judicial
or an administrative body, but rather a monitoring body created
by the States parties themselves with declaratory powers only, it
follows that:

(a) Considerable weight will be
given, in exercising the Committees jurisdiction pursuant
to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of fact that are made
by organs of the State party concerned; but

(b) The Committee is not bound by
such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22,
paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts
based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.